I thought we had a thread for the evolution of the genetic code, and some of the IDists claims about it. I guess it got lost in the server crash. Anyway, I thought I'd start this one up anew, and post a recent paper that's relevant to the origins of the genetic code.

No accident: genetic codes freeze in error-correcting patterns of the standard genetic code.

Ardell DH, Sella G.

Quote

The standard genetic code poses a challenge in understanding the evolution of information processing at a fundamental level of biological organization. Genetic codes are generally coadapted with, or 'frozen' by, the protein-coding genes that they translate, and so cannot easily change by natural selection. Yet the standard code has a significantly non-random pattern that corrects common errors in the transmission of information in protein-coding genes. Because of the freezing effect and for other reasons, this pattern has been proposed not to be due to selection but rather to be incidental to other evolutionary forces or even entirely accidental. We present results from a deterministic population genetic model of code-message coevolution. We explicitly represent the freezing effect of genes on genetic codes and the perturbative effect of changes in genetic codes on genes. We incorporate characteristic patterns of mutation and translational error, namely, transition bias and positional asymmetry, respectively. Repeated selection over small successive changes produces genetic codes that are substantially, but not optimally, error correcting. In particular, our model reproduces the error-correcting patterns of the standard genetic code. Aspects of our model and results may be applicable to the general problem of adaptation to error in other natural information-processing systems.

The Standard Genetic Code is organized such that similar codons encode similar amino acids. One explanation suggested that the Standard Code is the result of natural selection to reduce the fitness "load" that derives from the mutation and mistranslation of protein-coding genes. We review the arguments against the mutational load-minimizing hypothesis and argue that they need to be reassessed. We review recent analyses of the organization of the Standard Code and conclude that under cautious interpretation they support the mutational load-minimizing hypothesis. We then present a deterministic asexual model with which we study the mode of selection for load minimization. In this model, individual fitness is determined by a protein phenotype resulting from the translation of a mutable set of protein-coding genes. We show that an equilibrium fitness may be associated with a population with the same genetic code and that genetic codes that assign similar codons to similar amino acids have a higher fitness. We also show that the number of mutant codons in each individual at equilibrium, which determines the strength of selection for load minimization, reflects a long-term evolutionary balance between mutations in messages and selection on proteins, rather than the number of mutations that occur in a single generation, as has been assumed by previous authors. We thereby establish that selection for mutational load minimization acts at the level of an individual in a single generation. We conclude with comments on the shortcomings and advantages of load minimization over other hypotheses for the origin of the Standard Code.